Wayne Allyn Root's statement below has been Correctly Attributed. The link to Snopes.com is at the end of his statement.

If Obama is re-elected in 2012, the US is finished. The following is in simple language that everyone can understand, not the gibberish that our government keeps telling people.

Please read this carefully and make sure you keep this message going. This needs to be emailed to everyone in the USA...

By Wayne Allyn Root

Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. On the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Hussein Obama was my college classmate.

(Columbia University, class of '83).

He is a devout Muslim; do not be fooled. Look at his czars... Anti-business. anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussein Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University... they outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a Socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival... And can be counted on to always vote for even bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

Universal Health Care: The Health Care bill has very little to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and healthcare workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free healthcare to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

Cap and Trade: Like healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, Cap and Trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obamas biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama spread the wealth around.

Making Puerto Rico a state: Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers! But this has been Barack Hussein Obamas plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressmen and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. (This will tip the balance of those living off the government to more than those who must pay for it; and were done for.)

Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants: Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. (see note above re: Puerto Rico)

Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).

All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.

The ends justify the means. Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).

Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussein Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Last point: think about what this designed rule of the rabble will do to anyone successful. and everyone receiving this is. What will your lives be like under communism? The time to fight this abomination is now.______________________________

I have been saying this since President Obama first started running for president.

You need to read the man's history to understand what he is all about.

As I’m sure you know, the Washington Post Newspaper has always had a reputation for being extremely liberal, so the fact that their Editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in their newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. Finally, the truth about our radical President’s agenda is starting to trickle through the ‘protective walls’ built by our liberal media.

Matt Patterson (columnist for the Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Government & Society

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.

How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of cliches, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.

Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.

But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.

When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Go back and read it again!!!....and pass it on!!!!_______________________________________

One can't help but wonder where all the Obama supporters who used to regularly call me a racist have gone. Is it possible they have grown brains and common sense?

Why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.(Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!)The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democratic party took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.For those of you who are listening to the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.At that time:The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77The GDP growth for the previous quarter was 3.5%The Unemployment rate was 4.6%And George Bush's Economic policies had set a record of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of job growth.Remember that day...January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!Unemployment... adding to this CRISIS (among MANY other things) was the dumping of 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA!And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?... the Democratic Congress!So when someone tries to blame Bush...REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that has controlled Congress (and the budgets) since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush finally and somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. However, in 2009 Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete the 2009 budget.If the Democrats inherited any deficit at all, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, the Democrats in Congress had control of spending, and the the rest is history... HUGE DEFICITS, and a credit rating downgrade.If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from his own Democratic Senators and Representatives led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. But don't forget Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Frank Reams and Jimmy Johnson at Fanny and Freddie._________________________________________________

The saddest, albeit possibly most accurate short message you will read..

Written by a USMC Vet( I can't argue with any of it. Passing it along as it was received. )

He wrote:The American Dream ended (on November 6th) in Ohio. The second term ofBarack Obama will be the final nail in the coffin for the legacy of the whiteChristian males who discovered, explored, pioneered, settled and developedthe greatest Republic in the history of mankind.

The Cocker Spaniel is off the front porch... The Pit Bull is in the back yard.The American Constitution has been replaced with Saul Alinsky's "Rules forRadicals" and Chicago shyster, David Axelrod, along with internationalSocialist George Soros will be pulling the strings on their beige puppet tobring us Act 2 of the New World Order.

Our side ran two candidates who couldn't even win their own home states, andthe circus fattster Chris Christie helped Obama over the top with a glowing"post Sandy" tribute that elevated the "Commander-in-Chief" to MotherTeresa status. (Aside: with the way the polls were run, he didn't need any help!)

People like me are completely politically irrelevant, and I will never againcomment on or concern myself with the aforementioned coalition which hassurrendered our culture, our heritage and our traditions without a shot beingfired.

You will never again out-vote these people. It will take individual acts ofdefiance and massive displays of civil disobedience to get back the rights wehave allowed them to take away. It will take Zealots, not moderates--notreach-across-the-aisle RINOs to right this ship and restore our belovedcountry to its former status.

Those who come after us will have to risk their lives, their fortunes and theirsacred honor to bring back the Republic that this generation has timidlyfrittered away due to "white guilt" and political correctness.....

I'm done. ________________________________________________

The above message was forwarded to me this morning. It's a dim picture that is going to come into focus with terrifying speed. It seems difficult to envision what we can do about it.

Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. On the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Hussein Obama was my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83).

He is a devout Muslim; do not be fooled. Look at his czars... Anti-business anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussein Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

Add up the clues below. Taken individually, they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a Socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival. And can be counted on to always vote for even bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

Universal Health Care:

The Health Care bill has very little to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and healthcare workers as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free healthcare to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

Cap and Trade:

Like healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, Cap and Trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy, and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama spread the wealth around.

Making Puerto Rico a state:

Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers! But this has been Barack Hussein Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressmen and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

(This will tip the balance of those living off the government to more than those who must pay for it; and we're done for.)

Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants:

Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. (see note above re: Puerto Rico)

Stimulus and bailouts

Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).

All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.

The ends justify the means. Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).

Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussein Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussein Obama using the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Last point: think about what this designed rule of the rabble will do to anyone successful and everyone receiving this is. What will your lives be like under Communism? The time to fight this abomination is now.

I hope each of you will share this with your friends._____________________________

We came four votes away from the U.S. Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations.

In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power and to allow the creation of an UN police force to come into this country to assist in the collection of weapons from US, you and me!

"The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo."

For those of us who believe in the Second Amendment, we have paid close attention to history. and are very much aware of what the highlighted portion above signifies. It's been, historically, the first step in government confiscation of all private firearms. The UN has stated that is their end game.

Actually it would have needed 66 (or 67?) votes to be ratified (2/3), so it was voted down by 8 votes, not 4. Still too close for comfort, but not as scary as it sounded.

While I don't think the United States should sign that treaty, there's LOTS of misinformation out there about it on both sides.

Here are a few of the things I find concerning about the treaty from the things I've read

1) I don't support any international document that leaves open any possible reason, excuse, or loophole whereby a future change might trump our Constitutional rights. If you read the treaty, there's enough wiggle room there that at some point in the future, an amendment which could be in direct violation to our own 2nd Amendment could pass without the United States support. I'd like to think that if something like that happened, our government would support our rights first and foremost, but sadly I don't trust our politicians to do that any more.

2) It isn't true that the treaty would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammunition - it would only affect weapons imported. We have plenty of US based gun manufacturers who mfg. excellent weapons that would not fall under that category.

What isn't clear to me from the language is how imported "parts" would be affected. In other words, if a US mfg. has certain parts fabricated in a foreign country and those parts are imported and used to make a gun in the USA, do they need to be recorded and tracked to the end user? If that's the case, then it WOULD be an issue imho - but I can't clearly follow the wording enough to know if that's the case.

3) I don't like anything that slowly starts whittling away our 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment is one of the few things (if not the only thing) standing between "we the people" and a tyrannical government.

I understand the parts thing...many selective fire weapons have been cut up and imported into Utah...and other states...where they are sold to clever little elves who can convert a legal weapon into a selective fire weapon rather quickly.

the united states created the united nations to avoid future world wars...remember the last two? rather pricy in both men and material.

why do people always tell me to follow history...as if I never heard of the subject?

Thanks. Best to keep me on the straight and narrow here. I checked to make sure the treaty was legitimate, but didn't look into the details that much. When it comes from the UN, I am not that confident it will be good for the United States.

Donald,

I didn't say you haven't followed history. I simply stated that most people follow the history that interests them.

Thanks. Best to keep me on the straight and narrow here. I checked to make sure the treaty was legitimate, but didn't look into the details that much. When it comes from the UN, I am not that confident it will be good for the United States.

Donald,

I didn't say you haven't followed history. I simply stated that most people follow the history that interests them.

Hope all is well with you.

Take care,

Joe

You're welcome Joe, but to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 of us read the actual treaty and came away with 3 different interpretations of at least parts of it - and heck, it's only like 12-13 pages!!!

Most of these treaties, bills, government documents, etc... are written by lawyers for lawyers imho. I'm not the shapest tack in the box, but I always figure I should be intelligent enough to understand them, but I'd say almost every time I try I come away almost as confused as before I read them. Heck, most of the lawyers who get involved can't even agree on what they mean.

In fact, just think about this for a second. We have a Supreme Court of 9 justices who are supposed to be some of the most well informed, well read, intelligent people in the legal system. Their job is to INTERPRET law, and yet how many decisions come down to 6-3 or 5-4 votes?? Don't get me wrong, I know how it happens... because each of them are human and have their own political and sociological "slants" to their personalities. But when you think about it - how F'd up is that?????!!!! These people make some of the most far reaching impactful decisions to face our entire country, and yet even they can rarely come close to agreeing on their interpretations.

the trade in weapons(legal and illegal) has been a thorn in the side of modern human interactions.

it is my belief that this UN treaty is meant to stop the flow of arms to belligerents across the globe.

weapons from every conflict, of all types, have moved across the globe...from one "revolution" to the next...several papers have been published on this topic...us weapons from here go there...soviet weapons from there go here.

i don't think the treaty is bad...but as paul has indicated...even the damn lawyers cant agree on what the treaty accomplishes.

i am as fine as can be joe...i am concerned with some of my friends though...got a call last night, someone i care for had a stroke...or something similar enought to get a ride and overnight stay at the hospital...and my damn truck wont let me travel down there to hold her hand....grrrrrr